Is Church Membership Really Required?

How, in the context of I Corinthians 5, is “within” and “without” about anything but church membership? The whole chapter is about putting a sexually immoral man, who is currently “within” the church, out. “Out” of what? “Out” of the church. Those who are in the church (the sexually immoral man) are to be judged by “you”. Those who are outside the church (the immoral man after he is put out) are judged by God. They are no longer the business of the church, but as long as they are “inside” the church, they are the church’s business and solemn responsibility.

If this doesn’t teach, even demand, church membership, then words don’t mean anything.

I tend to side with the 9 Marks view of church membership.

We live in an age of non-commitment. Someone who attends a church regularly and seeks to be involved as much as they can without commitment is living a spiritual “friends with benefits” lifestyle.

In a side note, I was in a church for many years that preached that there was no such thing as church membership. They considered themselves a “fellowship”. One person made ALL the decisions and those in the fellowship either went long or went away.

I can see the difficulty a church lasting longer than a generation if there weren’t members. Does anyone have an example of such a church?

[Barry L.]

I can see the difficulty a church lasting longer than a generation if there weren’t members. Does anyone have an example of such a church?

The church I referred to earlier (the one that doesn’t believe in membership) has been in existence for over 60 years.

[Susan R] I think our concept of church membership is colored by our culture of professionalism=decently-and-in-order. We want formal structures, documentation, and often equate ‘official’ with a signature on letterhead. Gold stickers are optional though.

While membership is certainly understood as a concept, it’s the method of determining membership that concerns me. IOW, faithful attendance isn’t enough- you have to sign papers, take classes, or make some other ‘official’ commitment and promise loyalty and accountability, and whatever that means can change without notice.

Much of this “culture of professionalism” is based on wisdom given our current culture. Churches open themselves up to lawsuits that don’t have a constitution / by laws that detail governance, belief, and practice and that don’t have a mechanism whereby individuals are informed about and voluntarily agree to the governance and policies of the church. There is some question as to whether churches can exercise church disciple on “regular attenders” because they have not volunteered to place themselves under the authority and governance of the church. So, while a church can forbid such a person from attending its services, it may find itself open to civil liability if it goes through the process of church discipline (i.e. exposes the person’s sin publicly) because the person has never agreed to submit to that process.

“We don’t know, but we think they did something, so whatever we choose to do is necessary and therefore Biblical.”

Well, we know they did something with the result that people knew who was in and who was out.

If church membership (as we tend to define it) was such a necessity, why was the definition and mechanism for ascertaining such not explained?

Probably because it was well understood, and it wasn’t a topic that needed to be addressed in the epistles, outside of a few key points like 1 Cor 5, 2 Thess 3.

How in the context of 1 Cor. 5 are the words “within” and “without” about local church membership?

Well, Paul is telling them to put someone out. Out of what, you ask? Out of the local church. And he is drawing the distinction with those who are already out. How did they know they were out? Because there was some sort of membership. Otherwise, it would be impossible to know.

I think sometimes the current definition of ‘church membership’ erases our accountability to each other as Christians?

Not sure what your “current definition” is, but my current definition actually increases accountabilty to each other as Christians. Perhaps it might for some for whom church membership is just having a name on a role. But that’s not a biblical picture of church membership

Which leads me to ask - Where in Scripture are these lines of demarcation drawn between congregations so that each not only acts independently but with complete autonomy?

All NT churches were independent and autonomous. The only interchurch authority was apostolic. But it is likely that there weren’t fifty church options in a city where people could just jump from church to church. Much of the practice of the biblical principles comes from the current situation of the proliferation of churches and the lack of interaction between them.

To use the apostolic illustration, the members of the (human) body are intimately and organically united to one another.

I can recommend two very helpful books on the “why” of church membership: TO BE OR NOT TO BE A CHURCH MEMBER? by Wayne Mack,

ISBN 1-879737-57-4, published by Calvary Press Publishing, Merrick , New York. Mack gives 10 reasons for church membership. Also,

MORE THAN SPECTATORS, by Paul Downey, ISBN 1-889893-79-X. published by Ambassador Emerald International, Greenville, SC. I like

Mack the best. Captain Joe Henderson

What does the NT teach about membership? That is the question that must be answered. Trying to get people to be a member is irrelevant until you can establish what membership means.

Does the NT refer to nonmember believers? I don’t think so. All believers are to be joined to a local church. Why would I think a person is a disciple of Jesus if he won’t do what Jesus commands? In other words, why count someone as part of the body if they won’t be part of the body? Is it our weak soteriology?

My church has no official membership list. We have practiced church discipline a number of times. We have existed for 50yrs.

[Ron Bean] We live in an age of non-commitment. Someone who attends a church regularly and seeks to be involved as much as they can without commitment is living a spiritual “friends with benefits” lifestyle.

A spiritual “friends with benefits” lifestyle? Now that’s an analogy that nearly made me toss my cookies.

What is commitment then? Is it standing in front of a church and being voted in? Signing a church covenant? Raising your right hand and taking an oath?

Official membership is like baptism. You are identifying yourself with something. You are saying “I believe what this group of believers believe.” “I support the outreach and discipleship they, make that “we” do.” “I’m committed”. “You can count on me.”

This happened in my area. A church that had a very loose connection of membership and no interview that revealed the “members” actually believed the same doctrine as the church constitution, had a group come in and vote out the pastor and take over the church property and start teaching their new doctrine. That is how to get a free church building.

[T Howard]

Susan R wrote:

I think our concept of church membership is colored by our culture of professionalism=decently-and-in-order. We want formal structures, documentation, and often equate ‘official’ with a signature on letterhead. Gold stickers are optional though.

While membership is certainly understood as a concept, it’s the method of determining membership that concerns me. IOW, faithful attendance isn’t enough- you have to sign papers, take classes, or make some other ‘official’ commitment and promise loyalty and accountability, and whatever that means can change without notice.

Much of this “culture of professionalism” is based on wisdom given our current culture. Churches open themselves up to lawsuits that don’t have a constitution / by laws that detail governance, belief, and practice and that don’t have a mechanism whereby individuals are informed about and voluntarily agree to the governance and policies of the church. There is some question as to whether churches can exercise church disciple on “regular attenders” because they have not volunteered to place themselves under the authority and governance of the church. So, while a church can forbid such a person from attending its services, it may find itself open to civil liability if it goes through the process of church discipline (i.e. exposes the person’s sin publicly) because the person has never agreed to submit to that process.

I completely agree that some of what we do is in obedience to gov’t requirements, and that is a Biblical argument for church membership when official commitments are required.

On the 2nd point- if Christians can only rebuke (publicly) those who are officially members of their church, would that not mean we are letting the world dictate whether or not we obey the Scriptural mandate to rebuke and admonish one another? Or do those verses (regarding rebuke and correction) only apply to those of one’s congregation, and not to one’s friends and family who do not attend the same church?

Is there ever a time when it is appropriate for a Christian to approach the pastor of a different church about a member who is involved in immoral behavior and will not respond to being approached personally or with a witness?

I think the understanding of what church membership means is very important, so I’m not asking about this to be argumentative.

[G. N. Barkman]

How, in the context of I Corinthians 5, is “within” and “without” about anything but church membership? The whole chapter is about putting a sexually immoral man, who is currently “within” the church, out. “Out” of what? “Out” of the church. Those who are in the church (the sexually immoral man) are to be judged by “you”. Those who are outside the church (the immoral man after he is put out) are judged by God. They are no longer the business of the church, but as long as they are “inside” the church, they are the church’s business and solemn responsibility.

If this doesn’t teach, even demand, church membership, then words don’t mean anything.

I’ve long understood the terms ‘within’ and ‘without’ to mean Christians vs. non-Christians, not church members and non-church members. I agree that the man is put out of the church, but he is also put out of the fellowship of ALL believers, not just those of his local congregation.
The problem I have with some of this is the demarcation created between Christians who do not attend the same church. It almost sounds like unless we are members of the same church, no other Christians can rebuke, reprove, or exhort one another.

This can’t mean Christian or non-Christian. Please read the whole chapter carefully. The church can’t put someone “out” of union with Christ, but they can, and should, put an unrepentant immoral church member out of the church.

James,

In the book Acts people were saved, baptized, and then added to the church. This is church membership. You can’t discipline officially someone out of the church unless you officially added them to the church. Simply attending does not make someone a part of the church. I had a Jewish man attend my church for years. He was never saved, baptized, and added to the church. His faithful attendance does not make him a member. There has to be some vehicle of official recognition by the church leadership and congregation that a person is saved, scripturally baptized, possesses an orderly walk, and is in agreement with the church’s doctrinal position.